Internet Privacy And The Lobotomy Of The Web

The following guest post is by Russell Glass, CEO of Bizo, an online B2B marketing and targeting company.

The online privacy debate has transitioned from a thoughtful discussion with progress on the shoulders of self-regulatory industry efforts, to the stalemate that currently exists between hardline privacy advocates, industry players and browser companies. A major factor in the breakdown of these discussions is the unilateral decisions made by the browsers to block part of the functionality that makes the Web function today—specifically, the Mozilla Firefox decision to wholesale block certain cookies from loading in the browser. This move was a complete surprise to the industry and is akin to 20th century doctors lobotomizing patients to cure a mental illness. Just as these doctors had the best interests of their patients in mind, Firefox likely has the best interests of their users in mind. However, in both cases, the attempt at a cure creates an ineffective and harmful Cuckoo’s Nest and misses the underlying issues entirely.

There’s no reason to completely overhaul how the web works, which would cause significant harm to innovation and competitiveness. We should address the privacy issue with nuance to recognize that cookies are not the problem – not all cookies are bad, and not all companies who use cookies to track users are bad. In fact, the great majority of these companies provide huge benefits to consumers by developing more relevant online experiences and providing the abundance of free content that we have all grown accustomed to on the web. Furthermore, cookies are actually very easy to manage and control compared to newer technologies that would replace them if cookies are ultimately blocked by the browsers.

To get to a solution, we need to really understand the problem we are trying to solve – that malevolent parties could take advantage of technologies such as cookies for their gain at the expense of privacy. This is the issue we should be tackling. Instead of browser companies trying to radically transform the Internet by acting as surgeons on the quest for a quick but uncertain cure, we should put rules in place and enforcement mechanisms to prevent those that could do wrong from causing harm.

This solution could be easily accomplished through rules to govern the use of information, and required screening for enforcement. Companies with an intention to track would have to apply to be tested for compliance, and would have to submit to ongoing screening to ensure compliance with federal and self-regulatory rules. Those who pass the screening would be turned “on” for tracking. Those who fail OR who aren’t explicitly approved will be set to “off” for tracking. This simple concept will shift the onus of privacy compliance to those who want to track, and deliver benefits to consumers with full transparency and control, which are the ultimate goals of privacy advocates and consumers in the first place.

With this approach, consumers would be protected and feel confident that their data isn’t being misused. Advertisers and third parties who do things the right way in a transparent and controlled environment can continue to target ads, create valuable offers and support free content for consumers in a privacy-safe manner. And ultimately, we can all feel confident that we’re building an Internet that can continue to grow, and innovate without harming the consumers we’re trying to protect.

Of course, this approach raises two important questions: what are the rules, and who should be the owner of this screening process? With regard to the rules these companies need to follow, they could range from federal standards mandated by the Federal Trade Commission to industry self-regulatory guidelines that are already in place and enjoy wide industry and privacy advocate support, much like the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI) self-regulatory code, which Pam Dixon the Executive Director of the World Privacy Forum called “remarkable for a number of reasons – when I read it the first time, it knocked me off my feet.” As to who should enforce the rules, it could be either for- or non-profit associations or companies who apply to get sanctioned by the World Wide Web Consortium, the international non-profit charged with creating and maintaining standards for the Web. Organizations like NAI, Better Business Bureau, BPA Worldwide, Digital Advertising Alliance, Evidon, TRUSTe and PrivacyChoice all come to mind as possibilities to ensure that federal and self-regulatory rules are followed and to immediately suspend access to those that don’t.

As a result, only companies that pass this screening will have the privilege of targeting consumers, and for those that pass initial screening, any future misuse of this targeting information would have a penalty so severe – the inability to target most consumers online – that marketers won’t be able to take the risk of non-compliance.

When doctors used lobotomies to cure mental illness, they missed the underlying causes of the disease completely and thus caused huge amounts of damage to a patient’s personality and ability to function. Cutting out third-party cookies would lobotomize the web; blocking cookies simply cannot solve the privacy challenge. Let’s avoid the Cuckoo’s Nest. Privacy experts and industry advocates should get together and focus on a more nuanced approach to reduce privacy risks through targeted enforcement and removal of all those that do not pass screening – without resorting to a radical and harmful approach that misses the underlying causes entirely.

Russell Glass has long been an advocate of transparent consumer choice, launching Bizo with the very first “What’s in your cookie?” tool in 2008. He is a serial technology entrepreneur, having founded or held senior positions at four venture-backed technology companies. Prior to Bizo, Russ led the marketing and product management teams at ZoomInfo, a business information search engine, where he sharpened his B2B marketing skill set and developed his love for business data.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.